issue_comments

Table actions

3 rows where author_association = "MEMBER" and issue = 1690019325 sorted by updated_at descending

✖
✖
✖

✎ View and edit SQL

This data as json, CSV (advanced)

Suggested facets: reactions, created_at (date), updated_at (date)

user 2

issue 1

  • Start making unit testing more general · 3 ✖

author_association 1

  • MEMBER · 3 ✖
id html_url issue_url node_id user created_at updated_at ▲ author_association body reactions performed_via_github_app issue
1530111638 https://github.com/pydata/xarray/pull/7799#issuecomment-1530111638 https://api.github.com/repos/pydata/xarray/issues/7799 IC_kwDOAMm_X85bM6aW TomNicholas 35968931 2023-05-01T19:30:05Z 2023-05-01T19:30:05Z MEMBER

I was not aware of https://github.com/pydata/xarray/issues/6894, which is definitely my bad for not searching properley before setting off smile

No worries! :grin:

It looks like the changes I'm proposing here are probably orthogonal to work in https://github.com/pydata/xarray/issues/6894 though?

I think generally yes they are, I agree.

the goal of this PR is to generalise the existing unit testing to make it a bit easier to run tests with different unit libraries

Any work that helps generalise xarray's support of units beyond specifically just pint is going to be useful!

My main point to draw your attention to is the idea that eventually, one-day, it would be nice to move all array-library specific testing out of the xarray core repo in favour of an approach similar to that proposed in #6894.

I think that testing for unit libraries is a bit less general than the duck array testing stuff, because there's a host of extra information you need to be a unit library compared to a general duck array.

This is also true. Maybe that means for example the base class you are writing here has a long-term future as an optional part of xarray's testing framework in #6894, specifically for use when testing units libraries? Just thinking out loud

 
{
    "total_count": 0,
    "+1": 0,
    "-1": 0,
    "laugh": 0,
    "hooray": 0,
    "confused": 0,
    "heart": 0,
    "rocket": 0,
    "eyes": 0
}
   Start making unit testing more general 1690019325
1529877407 https://github.com/pydata/xarray/pull/7799#issuecomment-1529877407 https://api.github.com/repos/pydata/xarray/issues/7799 IC_kwDOAMm_X85bMBOf dcherian 2448579 2023-05-01T16:00:25Z 2023-05-01T16:00:25Z MEMBER

In general I think it would be fine to merge incremental changes.

It may be good to schedule a quick 30 minute chat to sync up ideas here.

 
{
    "total_count": 1,
    "+1": 1,
    "-1": 0,
    "laugh": 0,
    "hooray": 0,
    "confused": 0,
    "heart": 0,
    "rocket": 0,
    "eyes": 0
}
   Start making unit testing more general 1690019325
1529775846 https://github.com/pydata/xarray/pull/7799#issuecomment-1529775846 https://api.github.com/repos/pydata/xarray/issues/7799 IC_kwDOAMm_X85bLobm TomNicholas 35968931 2023-05-01T14:28:24Z 2023-05-01T14:28:24Z MEMBER

Hi @dstansby, thanks for taking initiative on this! Supporting other units-aware packages would be awesome.

Are you aware of our efforts around https://github.com/pydata/xarray/issues/6894? The idea there was to create a general framework for downstream testing of duck-array libraries, including any implementations of units.

I think the ideas you are proposing here are useful and important, but we should probably discuss what we want the end state of duck-array test suites to look like.

cc @keewis

 
{
    "total_count": 0,
    "+1": 0,
    "-1": 0,
    "laugh": 0,
    "hooray": 0,
    "confused": 0,
    "heart": 0,
    "rocket": 0,
    "eyes": 0
}
   Start making unit testing more general 1690019325

Advanced export

JSON shape: default, array, newline-delimited, object

CSV options: 

CREATE TABLE [issue_comments] (
   [html_url] TEXT,
   [issue_url] TEXT,
   [id] INTEGER PRIMARY KEY,
   [node_id] TEXT,
   [user] INTEGER REFERENCES [users]([id]),
   [created_at] TEXT,
   [updated_at] TEXT,
   [author_association] TEXT,
   [body] TEXT,
   [reactions] TEXT,
   [performed_via_github_app] TEXT,
   [issue] INTEGER REFERENCES [issues]([id])
);
CREATE INDEX [idx_issue_comments_issue]
    ON [issue_comments] ([issue]);
CREATE INDEX [idx_issue_comments_user]
    ON [issue_comments] ([user]);